Summary
--
This PR unifies the two different ways Ruff and ty construct syntax
errors. Ruff has been storing the primary message in the diagnostic
itself, while ty attached the message to the primary annotation:
```
> ruff check try.py
invalid-syntax: name capture `x` makes remaining patterns unreachable
--> try.py:2:10
|
1 | match 42:
2 | case x: ...
| ^
3 | case y: ...
|
Found 1 error.
> uvx ty check try.py
WARN ty is pre-release software and not ready for production use. Expect to encounter bugs, missing features, and fatal errors.
Checking ------------------------------------------------------------ 1/1 files
error[invalid-syntax]
--> try.py:2:10
|
1 | match 42:
2 | case x: ...
| ^ name capture `x` makes remaining patterns unreachable
3 | case y: ...
|
Found 1 diagnostic
```
I think there are benefits to both approaches, and I do like ty's
version, but I feel like we should pick one (and it might help with
#20901 eventually). I slightly prefer Ruff's version, so I went with
that. Hopefully this isn't too controversial, but I'm happy to close
this if it is.
Note that this shouldn't change any other diagnostic formats in ty
because
[`Diagnostic::primary_message`](98d27c4128/crates/ruff_db/src/diagnostic/mod.rs (L177))
was already falling back to the primary annotation message if the
diagnostic message was empty. As a result, I think this change will
partially resolve the FIXME therein.
Test Plan
--
Existing tests with updated snapshots
## Summary
Implement `docstring-extraneous-parameter` (`DOC102`). This rule checks
that all parameters present in a functions docstring are also present in
its signature.
Split from #13280, per this
[comment](https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/pull/13280#issuecomment-3280575506).
Part of #12434.
## Test Plan
Test cases added.
---------
Co-authored-by: Brent Westbrook <brentrwestbrook@gmail.com>
This is the ultra-minimal implementation of
* https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/296
that was previously discussed as a good starting point. In particular we
don't actually bother trying to figure out the exact python versions,
but we still mention "hey btw for No Reason At All... you're on python
3.10" when you try to access something that has a definition rooted in
the stdlib that we believe exists sometimes.
This is a drive-by improvement that I stumbled backwards into while
looking into
* https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/296
I was writing some simple tests for "thing not in old version of stdlib"
diagnostics and checked what was added in 3.14, and saw
`compression.zstd` and to my surprise discovered that `import
compression.zstd` and `from compression import zstd` had completely
different quality diagnostics.
This is because `compression` and `compression.zstd` were *both*
introduced in 3.14, and so per VERSIONS policy only an entry for
`compression` was added, and so we don't actually have any definite info
on `compression.zstd` and give up on producing a diagnostic. However the
`from compression import zstd` form fails on looking up `compression`
and we *do* have an exact match for that, so it gets a better
diagnostic!
(aside: I have now learned about the VERSIONS format and I *really* wish
they would just enumerate all the submodules but, oh well!)
The fix is, when handling an import failure, if we fail to find an exact
match *we requery with the parent module*. In cases like
`compression.zstd` this lets us at least identify that, hey, not even
`compression` exists, and luckily that fixes the whole issue. In cases
where the parent module and submodule were introduced at different times
then we may discover that the parent module is in-range and that's fine,
we don't produce the richer stdlib diagnostic.
## Summary
`dataclasses.field` and field-specifier functions of commonly used
libraries like `pydantic`, `attrs`, and `SQLAlchemy` all return the
default type for the field (or `Any`) instead of an actual `Field`
instance, even if this is not what happens at runtime. Let's make use of
this fact and assume that *all* field specifiers return the type of the
default value of the field.
For standard dataclasses, this leads to more or less the same outcome
(see test diff for details), but this change is important for 3rd party
dataclass-transformers.
## Test Plan
Tested the consequences of this change on the field-specifiers branch as
well.
## Summary
Resolves https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/1349.
Fix match statement value patterns to use equality comparison semantics
instead of incorrectly narrowing to literal types directly. Value
patterns use equality for matching, and equality can be overridden, so
we can't always narrow to the matched literal.
## Test Plan
Updated match.md with corrected expected types and an additional example
with explanation
---------
Co-authored-by: David Peter <mail@david-peter.de>
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! To help us out with reviewing,
please consider the following:
- Does this pull request include a summary of the change? (See below.)
- Does this pull request include a descriptive title? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
This PR implements `F702`
https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/continue-outside-loop/ as semantic
syntax error.
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
Tests are already previously written in F702
---------
Signed-off-by: 11happy <soni5happy@gmail.com>
## Summary
Part of astral-sh/ty#1341
The following changes will be made to `Place`.
* Introduce `TypeOrigin`
* `Place::Type` -> `Place::Defined`
* `Place::Unbound` -> `Place::Undefined`
* `Boundness` -> `Definedness`
`TypeOrigin::Declared`+`Definedness::PossiblyUndefined` are patterns
that weren't considered before, but this PR doesn't address them yet,
only refactors.
## Test Plan
Refactoring
<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! To help us out with reviewing,
please consider the following:
- Does this pull request include a summary of the change? (See below.)
- Does this pull request include a descriptive title? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->
## Summary
<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->
`airflow.datasets.DatasetEvent` has been removed in 3 but `AssetEvent`
might be added in the future
## Test Plan
<!-- How was it tested? -->
update the test fixture and reorg in the second commit
Summary
--
Fixes#20844 by refining the unsupported syntax error check for [PEP
701]
f-strings before Python 3.12 to allow backslash escapes and escaped
outer quotes
in the format spec part of f-strings. These are only disallowed within
the
f-string expression part on earlier versions. Using the examples from
the PR:
```pycon
>>> f"{1:\x64}"
'1'
>>> f"{1:\"d\"}"
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
ValueError: Invalid format specifier '"d"' for object of type 'int'
```
Note that the second case is a runtime error, but this is actually
avoidable if
you override `__format__`, so despite being pretty weird, this could
actually be
a valid use case.
```pycon
>>> class C:
... def __format__(*args, **kwargs): return "<C>"
...
>>> f"{C():\"d\"}"
'<C>'
```
At first I thought narrowing the range we check to exclude the format
spec would
only work for escapes, but it turns out that cases like `f"{1:""}"` are
already
covered by an existing `ParseError`, so we can just narrow the range of
both our
escape and quote checks.
Our comment check also seems to be working correctly because it's based
on the
actual tokens. A case like
[this](https://play.ruff.rs/9f1c2ff2-cd8e-4ad7-9f40-56c0a524209f):
```python
f"""{1:# }"""
```
doesn't include a comment token, instead the `#` is part of an
`InterpolatedStringLiteralElement`.
Test Plan
--
New inline parser tests
[PEP 701]: https://peps.python.org/pep-0701/
A large part of the diff on #20677 just involves threading a new
`inferable` parameter through all of the type property methods. In the
interests of making that PR easier to review, I've pulled that bit out
into here, so that it can be reviewed in isolation. This should be a
pure refactoring, with no logic changes or behavioral changes.
## Summary
I considered making a dedicated cargo profile for these, but the
`profiling` profile basically made all the modifications to `release`
that I would have also made.
## Test Plan
CI on this PR
## Summary
Fixed a typo. It should be "or", not "of". Both `.pop()` and `next()` on
an empty collection will raise `IndexError`, not "`[0]` of the `pop()`
function"
## Test Plan
n/a
Summary
--
This PR implements the black preview style from
https://github.com/psf/black/pull/4720. As of Python 3.14, you're
allowed to omit the parentheses around groups of exceptions, as long as
there's no `as` binding:
**3.13**
```pycon
Python 3.13.4 (main, Jun 4 2025, 17:37:06) [Clang 20.1.4 ] on linux
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> try: ...
... except (Exception, BaseException): ...
...
Ellipsis
>>> try: ...
... except Exception, BaseException: ...
...
File "<python-input-1>", line 2
except Exception, BaseException: ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
SyntaxError: multiple exception types must be parenthesized
```
**3.14**
```pycon
Python 3.14.0rc2 (main, Sep 2 2025, 14:20:56) [Clang 20.1.4 ] on linux
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> try: ...
... except Exception, BaseException: ...
...
Ellipsis
>>> try: ...
... except (Exception, BaseException): ...
...
Ellipsis
>>> try: ...
... except Exception, BaseException as e: ...
...
File "<python-input-2>", line 2
except Exception, BaseException as e: ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
SyntaxError: multiple exception types must be parenthesized when using 'as'
```
I think this ended up being pretty straightforward, at least once Micha
showed me where to start :)
Test Plan
--
New tests
At first I thought we were deviating from black in how we handle
comments within the exception type tuple, but I think this applies to
how we format all tuples, not specifically with the new preview style.
Summary
--
```shell
git clone git@github.com:psf/black.git ../other/black
crates/ruff_python_formatter/resources/test/fixtures/import_black_tests.py ../other/black
```
Then ran our tests and accepted the snapshots
I had to make a small fix to our tuple normalization logic for `del`
statements
in the second commit, otherwise the tests were panicking at a changed
AST. I
think the new implementation is closer to the intention described in the
nearby
comment anyway, though.
The first commit adds the new Python, settings, and `.expect` files, the
next three commits make some small
fixes to help get the tests running, and then the fifth commit accepts
all but one of the new snapshots. The last commit includes the new
unsupported syntax error for one f-string example, tracked in #20774.
Test Plan
--
Newly imported tests. I went through all of the new snapshots and added
review comments below. I think they're all expected, except a few cases
I wasn't 100% sure about.
## Summary
If a function is decorated with a decorator that returns a union of
`Callable`s, also treat it as a union of function-like `Callable`s.
Labeling as `internal`, since the previous change has not been released
yet.
## Test Plan
New regression test.
## Summary
Rename "unwrapping" methods on `Type` from e.g.
`Type::into_class_literal` to `Type::as_class_literal`. I personally
find that name more intuitive, since no transformation of any kind is
happening. We are just unwrapping from certain enum variants. An
alternative would be `try_as_class_literal`, which would follow the
[`strum` naming
scheme](https://docs.rs/strum/latest/strum/derive.EnumTryAs.html), but
is slightly longer.
Also rename `Type::into_callable` to `Type::try_upcast_to_callable`.
Note that I intentionally kept names like
`FunctionType::into_callable_type`, because those return `CallableType`,
not `Option<Type<…>>`.
## Test Plan
Pure refactoring
As part of #20598, we added `is_identical_to` methods to
`TypeVarInstance` and `BoundTypeVarInstance`, which compare when two
typevar instances refer to "the same" underlying typevar, even if we
have forced their lazy bounds/constraints as part of marking typevars as
inferable. (Doing so results in a different salsa interned struct ID,
since we've changed the contents of the `bounds_or_constraints` field.)
It turns out that marking typevars as inferable is not the only way that
we might force lazy bounds/constraints; it also happens when we
materialize a type containing a typevar. This surfaced as ecosystem
report failures on #20677.
That means that we need a more long-term fix to this problem.
(`is_identical_to`, and its underlying `original` field, were meant to
be a temporary fix until we removed the `MarkTypeVarsInferable` type
mapping.)
This PR extracts out a separate type (`TypeVarIdentity`) that only
includes the fields that actually inform whether two typevars are "the
same". All other properties of the typevar (default, bounds/constraints,
etc) still live in `TypeVarInstance`. Call sites that care about typevar
identity can now either store just `TypeVarIdentity` (if they never need
access to those other properties), or continue to store
`TypeVarInstance` but pull out its `identity` when performing those "are
they the same typevar" comparisons. (All of this also applies
respectively to `BoundTypeVar{Identity,Instance}`.) In particular,
constraint sets now work on `BoundTypeVarIdentity`, and generic contexts
still _store_ a `BoundTypeVarInstance` (since we might need access to
defaults when specializing), but are keyed on `BoundTypeVarIdentity`.
Generic classes are not allowed to bind or reference a typevar from an
enclosing scope:
```py
def f[T](x: T, y: T) -> None:
class Ok[S]: ...
# error: [invalid-generic-class]
class Bad1[T]: ...
# error: [invalid-generic-class]
class Bad2(Iterable[T]): ...
class C[T]:
class Ok1[S]: ...
# error: [invalid-generic-class]
class Bad1[T]: ...
# error: [invalid-generic-class]
class Bad2(Iterable[T]): ...
```
It does not matter if the class uses PEP 695 or legacy syntax. It does
not matter if the enclosing scope is a generic class or function. The
generic class cannot even _reference_ an enclosing typevar in its base
class list.
This PR adds diagnostics for these cases.
In addition, the PR adds better fallback behavior for generic classes
that violate this rule: any enclosing typevars are not included in the
class's generic context. (That ensures that we don't inadvertently try
to infer specializations for those typevars in places where we
shouldn't.) The `dulwich` ecosystem project has [examples of
this](d912eaaffd/dulwich/config.py (L251))
that were causing new false positives on #20677.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
